View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3926 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:46 pm Post subject: TEST 100mm for landscape: Macro vs Portrait |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Many vintage lenses in the 100mm range are well known excellent performers. Often they are small and quite lightweight - which means they are perfect for landscapes when hiking. Especially in the mountains a slightly longer focal length often is better than e. g. a 35mm or a 28mm wideangle; the mountains simply look more majestic from a distance (taken with 100mm or 200mm) than from near (35mm or 28mm).
For years I have been using the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro as a small tele and macro lens when biking in our Alps, usually along with a 20mm, an 50mm and a fast 200mm APO.
Since most manufacturers did have a "portrait type" and a "macro" lens with 100mm focal length, I have compared the corresponding MF lenses from Canon (FD 2.8/100mm vs FD 4/100mm Macro), Minolta (MD 2.5/100mm vs MD 4/100mm Macro) and Nikon (Nikkor 2.5/105mm vs Micro Nikkor 4/105mm). In addition I have included two famous lenses from Minoltas first AF series, the AF 2/100mm and the 2.8/100mm Macro. Both are beautifully machined, and both have all-metal barrels (including the focus grip!). Finally two Minolta AF zooms from the same generation are included as well: The AF 4-4.5/28-135mm and the 4.5-5.6/75-300mm. Both zooms were aimed at professional users and priced >CHF 1000.-- around 1988. They were more expensive than the AF 2/100mm or the AF 2/28mm.
Now - here are the test images:
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch
Last edited by stevemark on Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eggplant
Joined: 27 May 2020 Posts: 517
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggplant wrote:
Those zooms are looking pretty impressive, but then again not all the macro lenses are optimised for infinity, so maybe that's more impressive?
I think a bokeh test would seperate these out pretty quickly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1662
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
AF lenses are impressively sharp in the corners, but have pretty visible purple fringing. That is about all others except the AF 2/100 lens which looks the best from all points of view.
Nice comparison, Stephan, thank you for delivering a clear idea! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RokkorDoctor
Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1405 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Interesting comparison, thanks.
The Minolta MDIII 2.5/100, was that really shot at f/2.8 (a bit tricky to do on that lens, no click-stop at f/2.8 ), or was it actually at f/2.5?
Also, I have seen that house a few times before!
Are the owners perchance getting a bit paranoid by now, or did you ever explain why you so often have a camera pointed somewhat in their direction? _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Remarkable performance of the MDiii 100/2.5. Especially considering its size.
Last edited by caspert79 on Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 868
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Agreed. FD 100 2,8 also if you can deal with chromatic aberration. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
flavio81
Joined: 20 Mar 2022 Posts: 35 Location: Lima, Peru
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
flavio81 wrote:
Thanks Stephan/stevemark;
I'll say it again -- you are the reason I opened up an account here. Thank you so much for this test.
I would love if you could include the FD 2/100 in the future, a known fantastic lens. The minolta counterpart looks terrific.
I'm a big fan of the FD 100/2.8 so i am pleased to see it doing well. As for the Nikkor 105, probably what we're looking is field curvature... i wonder how a test with refocused corners will look.
You have uploaded a "bokeh test" of some of those lenses but the resolution is too low to judge. How about doing a portrait test with some of those lenses, using a real model (or a mannequin)? Because those 100 (except the macro lenses) were mostly intended for giving a pleasing, "natural" look. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Also interesting to see the difference between the Minolta MDiii 100/2.5 and Nikkor-P 105/2.5 xenotar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3926 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Here are some of those lenses again, this time showing their performance at the image center:
As expected, most lenses have a really sharp image center. Wide open, the contrast may be slightly lower, but stopped to f4.0 both contrast as well as resolution are really good. The only exceptions are the Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumat 2.8/105mm and (to a lesser extent) the Mamiya Sekor SX 2.8/105mm. Especially the Pentax clearly has a lower contrast. When it comes to corner performance (not shown here), the Pentax is quite a bit inferior to most other lenses; only the Mamyia also suffers from a relatively low resolution.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
paulhofseth
Joined: 05 Mar 2011 Posts: 575 Location: Norway
Expire: 2018-06-28
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
paulhofseth wrote:
Sir,
I find the Leitz elmarit 100mm quite good both for close and far subject matter, but the helix needs quite a lot of twisting.
p. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3926 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
paulhofseth wrote: |
Sir,
I find the Leitz elmarit 100mm quite good both for close and far subject matter, but the helix needs quite a lot of twisting.
p. |
Many moons ago I wisely decided to stay clear of Zeiss CY and Leitz Leica R lenses ...
That said, I have a Leica R 2.8/135mm and a few Leica SLRs which were simply too cheap to ignore, so I know how smooth they operate. Actually I have some collector friends who own some pretty nice Leica R stuff, and I might try to get them involved with testing / comparing. Thanks for the hint!
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Here are some of those lenses again, this time showing their performance at the image center:
As expected, most lenses have a really sharp image center. Wide open, the contrast may be slightly lower, but stopped to f4.0 both contrast as well as resolution are really good. The only exceptions are the Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumat 2.8/105mm and (to a lesser extent) the Mamiya Sekor SX 2.8/105mm. Especially the Pentax clearly has a lower contrast. When it comes to corner performance (not shown here), the Pentax is quite a bit inferior to most other lenses; only the Mamyia also suffers from a relatively low resolution.
S |
Surprisingly good performance of the Topcor wide open. I'm glad to have a prestine one in my collection. It's true that 100mm-ish lenses are often good performers, and I find it also a very pleasant focal length to work with. I played around with quite a few of them. I will open a seperate thread about some experiences with these lenses, maybe it's useful for some. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 868
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
100mm seems to be Minolta's realm. Sure Canon's 100 2,8 or Topcor are doing extremely well. But why bother? _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|